A new Australasian association is formed - ORSAA.org

A new Australasian association is formed - ORSAA.org

A new advisory group has been  formed:  http://www.emraustralia.com.au/knowledgebase/new-australasian-association-formed-orsaa-org

www.emraustralia.com.au The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) has been established to provide independent scientific advice about the impacts of wireless technology.

The trouble with so many advisory groups is that while they are highly commendable they are basically passive, they wait for people to come to them or find their website, which is probably why nothing much has changed in 20 years.  The above site has a very long list of luminaries, but what are they going to DO??

My intuition (and experience) tells me that if we want to see real change, people will need to get out there and be far more pro-active. Melissa presented a long list of things that could be done to raise awareness a while ago, and Dr Devra Davis is also thinking along these lines. There are, I know, many individuals who are, and have been, extremely pro-active recently, such as Dr Mallory Blythe, and others with media appearances, but there have been media appearances from top people for 20 years and it has made only a miniscule amount of difference.  Globally we  are SO fragmented.  Even the EMFScientist Appeal has not created a ripple within the industry and its cohorts, as far as I know.  (I stand to be corrected if this is wrong)

Would it not make sense to hold a Summit meeting, for three days, with top people from science, medicine and health care, to nut out a really effective strategy - not just a talk-fest - to counter this dangerously expanding technology.  This approach takes time, money, and energy.   But the summits need to be regular...........

What will it take?  When is 'enough is enough'?

Sarah

First Anniversary of Berkeley's Landmark Cell Phone "Right to Know" Law

First Anniversary of Berkeley's Landmark Cell Phone "Right to Know" Law

Berkeley's Cell Phone "Right to Know" Law

News Release, Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, May 12, 2016

Today is the first anniversary of Berkeley's landmark cell phone "right to know" law. The law requires cell phone retailers in the city either to post the city's safety notice about cell phone radiation or provide it to consumers.

Berkeley is the first city in the nation to pass a cell phone radiation ordinance since San Francisco disbanded with its ordinance after a two-year court battle with the CTIA, the cellphone industry's lobbying organization.

The CTIA filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the Berkeley law. Although litigation is ongoing in the Federal courts, the law went into effect on March 21st of this year based upon a ruling by the federal appeals court.

The CTIA claims that the law violates the industry's First Amendment rights as retailers would feel compelled to discuss an issue they are not prepared to discuss. Moreover, customers may be scared if they were directed to read the safety information which the FCC recommends be provided to consumers. This information is usually buried in user manuals which must be downloaded or hidden within smartphones.

More than 170 news stories have been published about this law. The Associated Press distributed two stories in the past year.

For information about the ordinance, the lawsuit, and the news coverage see my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.

http://bit.ly/berkeleycellordinance
http://bit.ly/berkeleymedia

==

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:               http://www.saferemr.com

Facebook:             http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:     http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                  @berkeleyprc

EMF Quiz, and Favor?

EMF Quiz, and Favor?

Dear EMF Stakeholders:

So often the messages we get about EMFs are distressing, so it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce solutions.  Dr. Devra Davis was gracious to introduce me to Brett West, an IT consultant in the U.K. who has built a company to provide on-line education for wireless technology safety.  I have had the privilege of lending my technical writing skill set to the first three courses and have tremendously enjoyed working alongside Brett and R&D Director Dr. Mikko Ahonen from Finland.

The first course is positioned as a free quiz to provide a very basic understanding of wireless safety. The second course, for about the cost of a movie ticket, provides further information for the general public.  The third course is designed to help corporate employers and their employees learn how to more safely use technology in the workplace.  You may access the courses below -- we hope you'll take the free quiz and we welcome your feedback at the bottom of each quiz page:

http://www.wirelesseducation.org/

Feel free to share this with others in your community and/or in social media.  

Next Steps -- and Favor

Our next course will be for the medical community, and we will be looking to put together a panel of advisors to make sure we get it right.  We would be very grateful if you could recommend EMF and EHS experts in the medical field to whom we could reach out in hopes they will lend their time to this project.  Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe has been an invaluable saint in her collaboration with us to date but we don't wish to take undue advantage of her good will and would like to engage others as well.  

Please email me if you have someone in mind, perhaps even yourself?  For those who currently suffer from EHS, please let me know if you would like to lend your voice to this project too. 

Thank you for your time and any suggestions you may have.

Very best regards,

Cece Doucette

Ashland, MA, USA

508-881-3878

ICNIRP's meeting at Capetown, South Africa

ICNIRP's meeting at Capetown, South Africa

Excerpt

Press release issued by the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of South Africa.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/0VYr4Y1ScS8

As the world’s radiation protection agency meets in Cape Town, scientists call for the retraction of a study from a top industry researcher claiming that children are not at higher risk from mobile phones.

May 9, 2016

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a self-appointed body that sets the safety guidelines used by the World Health Organisation to cover all radiation from electrical and electronic apparatus, including power lines, smartphones, wifi, and telecoms masts.

SNIP

Read the post here.

Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman's mobile phone 'all-clear study

Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman's mobile phone 'all-clear study

Excerpt

From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog Between A Rock and A Hard Place.

May 10, 2016

EXCERPT

Professor Simon Chapman responds…

Gallery

Posted on May 10, 2016

Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer, made headline news: Chapman S, Azizi L, Luo Q, Sitas F. Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago? Cancer Epidemiology, 2016 May 4.

Reason for this global interest is simple, the authors claim to have proven that cell phones do not cause brain cancer and the issue should be put to rest. The study analyzed the 29 year history of cell phone use in Australia and compared it with the numbers of brain cancer reported to cancer registry.

However, I think the authors greatly overstated significance of their results leading to misinformation of the readers and the general public at large. SNIP

Read the post here.

1%/yr increase in brain cancer in ages 15-19. $1.9 Bil. Brain Cancer Lawsuits. No insurance for cell carriers!

1%/yr increase in brain cancer in ages 15-19. $1.9 Bil. Brain Cancer Lawsuits. No insurance for cell carriers!

The study that appeared in Neuro-oncology that found that brain cancer is the most common cancer among 15-19 year olds is attached.  The study also showed that 32.4% of all cancers in children ages 0-14 are cancers of the brain and central nervous system.

Brain Tumor Rates Increasing in US

there has been a significant increase in the incidence of primary malignant brain and central nervous system (CNS) tumors in American children (0-14 years of age) between 2000-2010, with an annual percentage change (APC) of +0.6%/year. In adolescents (15-19 years old), there was a significant increase in the incidence of primary malignant brain and CNS tumors between 2000-2008, with an APC of 1.0%. Adolescents also experienced an increase in non-malignant brain and CNS tumors from 2004-2010, with an APC of 3.9%.  in a subsample of 556 youth for whom cell phone company records were available, there was a  significant association between the time since first mobile phone subscription and brain tumor risk. Children who used cellphones for 2.8 or more years were twice as likely to have a brain tumor than those who never regularly used cellphones (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.29). See November 3, 2015 post at  http://www.saferemr.com/2015/05/brain-tumor-rates-are-rising-in-us-role.html  (this website's author is Dr. Joel Moskowitz, who is the Director and Principal Investigator of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health

Brain Tumor Lawsuits

$1.9 billion in 13 lawsuits against Motorola and cell providers, centering around a Motorola handset technician developing brain cancer (he is dead now - the lawsuit was started 15 years ago)  Verizon indicates they "may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits,” Verizon wrote in its 2015 annual filing. “In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/case-on-health-risk-from-cellphones-is-back-in-court-1448235126 

So who will pay the $1.9 billion when Motorola and cell providers like Verizon lose their case?  Not insurance companies, because insurance companies won't insure for harm caused by RF wireless radiation!  Read below.

Opinions of Insurance Companies and AM BEST.  No Reinsurance available in case of future harm

Telecom companies are self-insured (a lot of big companies are self-insured), which means that they pay for insurance claims themselves.  Re-insurance companies back up self-insured companies in case they go bankrupt.  Major global re-insurance companies, Swiss Re and Lloyd's of London, do not cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising RF radiation exposure (which comes from cell towers) anymore. Since 1997, Swiss Re, one of the world's largest re-insurance companies, won't insure for health claims from cell phones http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.com/2011/12/swiss-re-will-not-re-insure-mobile.html   Since 1999 Lloyd's of London, the largest reinsurer in the world, stopped covering cell phone manufacturers for health claims related to cell phone use.  Lloyd's is known for taking on risky policies, stopped reinsuring for liability for electromagnetic wireless emissions starting February 2015.  Lloyd's of London, one of the largest insurers in the world, implemented the Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion.

The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude coverage for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure, which comes from cell phones, cell towers, all wireless devices (ipads, Wi-Fi laptops, Wi-Fi routers). This is very significant.  It means manufacturers of wireless devices, cell phone companies, and any businesses that use wireless devices where people are exposed are liable now for any health claims resulting from harm from their wireless devices.

Scroll to p. 7 of the A&E policy, item 32 Electromagnetic Fields, to see the wording  http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,15,4168

Lloyd's and other large re-insurance companies such as Swiss Re have relied on their own studies and their own scientists (rather than those funded by cell phone companies, which is the source of most US studies) and have determined that they will not insure the big cell phone and telecommunications companies for the long-term health effects of wireless products. They are even modelling what a brain cancer epidemic between 2020 and 2030 will cost.

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/04/lloyds-of-london-withdraw-insurance-for-illhealth-from-use-of-mobiles-phones-wifi-and-emfemr-2581024.html

Furthermore, AM Best, an insurance rating company, is warning about financial risks for emerging technologies, including wireless radiation.   Here is a direct quote from AM BEST: Emerging technologies pose significant risks with possible long tail losses.  The risks associated with long-term use of cell phones is unknown, however what is known is the risk that cell tower workers face.  Thermal effects include eye damage, sterility, and cognitive impairments.  http://www.ambest.com/directories/bestconnect/EmergingRisks.pdf  Insurance companies are in the

business of making money.  The higher the risk, the greater the potential profit.  If an insurance company won't insure a risk at any price, what does this tell you?

Vienna Medical University's study for Austrian Insurance Company

Here's a study published  in 2009 by Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks, who commissioned the Vienna Medical University to do a study, which found that cell phone radiation has an impact on :

- central  nervous system (brain)

- immune system

- protein synthesis

You can read full details of the study here http://nebula.wsimg.com/d2b92dccccea973e7ddcb579c2d081cc?AccessKeyId=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1  Here's a Canadian news story broadcast on CBC about insurance companies not insuring for cell phone health claims and an interview with Dr. Mosgoller, who led the Vienna Medical University study

https://youtu.be/GYvIHU0niDg

Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman's mobile phone 'all-clear study

Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman's mobile phone 'all-clear study

Excerpt

From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog Between A Rock and A Hard Place.

May 10, 2016

EXCERPT

Professor Simon Chapman responds…

Gallery
Posted on May 10, 2016

Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer, made headline news: Chapman S, Azizi L, Luo Q, Sitas F. Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago? Cancer Epidemiology, 2016 May 4.

Reason for this global interest is simple, the authors claim to have proven that cell phones do not cause brain cancer and the issue should be put to rest. The study analyzed the 29 year history of cell phone use in Australia and compared it with the numbers of brain cancer reported to cancer registry.

However, I think the authors greatly overstated significance of their results leading to misinformation of the readers and the general public at large. 

SNIP

Read the post here.

Smartphones and iPads change how the human brain works - and are destroying our memories

Smartphones and iPads change how the human brain works - and are destroying our memories

Elephant seeks out human help after being hurt by spear

Meet the husbands who fly first class – while their wives travel in economy

Smartphones and iPads really do shorten attention spans, a new study has warned.

Smartphones and iPads really do shorten attention spans, a new study has warned.

The multi-media devices are changing how the human brain works - making it harder for us to fully understand information.

Reading screens on tablets and phones makes users focus on a few concrete details rather than the big picture.

Seeing the bigger picture is important because it involves flexible reasoning, creativity, judgement and logical problem solving.

The findings presented at a conference for human-computer interaction serve as a wake-up call to how digital media is harming our ability to use abstract thought.

Classrooms are increasingly becoming digital as work is done on computers rather than in notebooks.

The study found more than 300 participants recruited for four tests performed better at comprehension and problem solving when they read information on print-outs rather than digital platforms.

Professor Geoff Kaufman, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania, said: "There has been a great deal of research on how digital platforms might be affecting attention, distractibility and mindfulness and these studies build on this work by focusing on a relatively understudied construct.

"Given psychologists have shown construal levels can vastly impact outcomes such as self-esteem and goal pursuit it's crucial to recognise the role digitisation of information might be having on this important aspect of cognition."

Construal levels are the fundamental amount of concreteness versus abstractness people use in perceiving and interpreting behaviours, events and other informational stimuli.

The researchers wanted to know if processing the same information on a digital versus non-digital platform would affect this.

Reading material and other content was published using the same print size and format in both versions with volunteers aged 20 to 24 years.

Participants were asked to do a series of tasks including filling in a form, reading a short story and comparing different car models - either on paper or on a computer screen.

Those given print-outs paper were much better at understanding the whole material while those using computers remembered particular details.

In a comprehension test about a short story those who had read it in print fared far better in questions about the story's inferences and broader narrative while those who had read the digital document retained more information about minor details.

© Provided by Mirror

When evaluating the specifications of four fictional cars, 66% of those who had read the comparison on paper could correctly say which was the best model, against 43% of those who had read it on a computer.

For the abstract questions participants using the non-digital platform scored higher on average with 66% correct as compared to those using the digital platform - 48%

On the concrete questions participants using the digital platform scored better with 73 per cent correct as compared to 58 per cent correct.

The study on digital versus non-digital platforms was prompted by earlier research which revealed players of the digital version of the public health strategy game "POX: Save the People" were more inclined to respond with localised solutions rather than looking at the big picture.

Professor Mary Flanagan, of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, said: "Compared to the widespread acceptance of digital devices as evidenced by millions of apps, ubiquitous smartphones and the distribution of iPads in schools, surprisingly few studies exist about how digital tools affect our understanding - our cognition.

"Knowing the affordances of digital technologies can help us design better software.

"Sometimes it's beneficial to foster abstract thinking and as we know more we can design to overcome the tendencies - or deficits - inherent in digital devices."

The research is being presented at the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) CHI (Computer-Human Intyeraction) '16 conference in San Jose in California.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/indepth/smartphones-and-ipads-change-how-the-human-brain-works-and-are-destroying-our-memories/ar-BBsOjtm?li=BBoPOOl&ocid=mailsignoutmd